5.3 PCSR 08-23-1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission, Riverview Sports Page 3 August 23, 1994 III APPLICANT'S REASON'S FOR VARIANCE REQUEST The petitioner has addressed several reasons for the granting of a variance from the sign setback and sign size requirements. Obstruction of view from the construction of a new wall by Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is one reason outlined by Mr. Lundquist. In addition to this wall, the applicant states that MnDOT will also be placing a fence on top of the wall. The applicant states that because of the construction of the wall, fence, and the topography of the land create unique circumstances for that particular location. Because the property is located at a higher elevation it becomes increasingly difficult for traffic to locate Riverview Sports. The applicant also addresses that because of an additional frontage road, the sign is located further away from Highway 10 than other areas located along Highway 10. These are the primary reasons given in the letter by the applicant that state the reasons for the granting of a variance from size and setback requirements. ANALYSIS In review of a variance request, staff considers the above mentioned points • before making a recommendation. The applicant has submitted a proposal for a sign and is requesting to locate the sign in the same location as the current sign. In order to use the proposed sign the applicant must receive approval of a variance. If the applicant does not receive approval of the variance request, they may still use the existing sign located on the property. The first point addresses whether literal enforcement of the code creates an undue hardship on the property. The applicant argues that similar businesses in the northern metro display more signage and special requirements are set by Suzuki as to the size and style of sign that can be displayed. The applicant also argues that moving the sign back would block an existing driveway. After viewing the proposed sign and examining whether moving the sign back eliminates the use of the driveway, staff believes there is adequate room for the sign to meet setback requirements and still maintain use of the driveway area. The second point addresses whether the hardship is caused by special conditions that are unique to the land. The applicant argues that because a new wall and fence are being created, literal application of the ordinance would cause a hardship. According to Wayne Hillstrom, MnDOT Project Engineer, the above mentioned wall would be twenty-eight (28) inches above the original grade and the fence, which is a chain-link design, would be • thirty-two (32) inches above the wall. This amounts to a total of sixty (60) lundquis.troy